I had more to say in response to this article, but all I will say is that I'm not a fan of Anita Sarkeesian nor do I think Polygon is a reliable source when it comes to reporting about her.

On the issue of her suffering harassment, though, I do think her claims of being subjected to some pretty awful behavior is entirely legitimate. On that score, I am on her side and think the conduct of those harassing and threatening her is utterly disgraceful. I also think that worst of them should be subjected to criminal prosecution. There's a difference between legitimate dissent and outright harassment and a number of her most virulent critics cross that line.

That's always pinged oddly with me, when some of the people in the communities I frequent always start their comments on Sarkeesian with, "I'm no fan of hers but..." What exactly is the point of that preface?

If I saw someone calling out or stopping street harassment, it would be really weird if they were all, "Hey, I don't like this lady much either, but..."

Not to speak for MonCap, but I suspect the reasoning is something like: "I'm no fan of Sarkeesian, but even I can clearly see that she's being treated in an utterly disgraceful manner -- which lends credibility to the claim that the treatment she's receiving is, indeed, utterly disgraceful."

__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”

I haven't seen any of her recent work yet, but her previous stuff is very analytical and critical. For those who don't understand there's multiple schools of feminism I could see her work rubbing "feminists" the wrong way because it's not their feminism, and/or it looks critically at it, instead of giving it a pass.

A quick example is fan service. Some schools say fan-service can be done right, others that there's no such thing as truly feminist fan service while still inside the patriarchal bubble. Which can then hit an issue when say someone both likes fan service and wants to be feminist.

For some, Klinger is seen as a subversive character, and that’s fine. Certainly he was “getting away” with cross-gender presentation.

For others, Klinger was one of the few glimmers of trans anything on TV in the 1970s. Right up there with Jodie Dallas or Linda Murkland. Klinger got to do such every week on TV, and those around him, while joking, nevertheless did not beat him for wearing dresses …and well, that was fairly progressive, I suppose.

Yet when we talk about trans folks in the military, I really don’t think Corporal Klinger is your best option. Beloved character or not.

Maybe it’s a bit “Milkshake Duck” here, but if you are comparing Klinger to trans people, you may be implying either subterfuge or insanity. You are equating trans people with being “men in dresses” who are trying to be deceptive and have a mental disorder.

Which, I gotta tell you, we get that a lot. A whole lot. So much that, ya, there were some raw feelings on a very raw feelings day.

Now I know folks meant well. There wasn’t ill intent here (I mean, from our allies), but we know what the road to hell is paved with – please understand why some may have taken that very poorly. Me, I’m thick skinned, but others aren’t so much.

One of the many reasons we need to be teaching more about gender is that many people make these mistakes because they just don't understand. Cross dressing and trans aren't the same thing but of course can easily appear to be if you've had no exposure. It's partly in how they act, cross dressing men vary from men who just happen to be in dresses, to fantastic characters but they are still men playing characters, whereas trans women in a dress act like themselves.

That's always pinged oddly with me, when some of the people in the communities I frequent always start their comments on Sarkeesian with, "I'm no fan of hers but..." What exactly is the point of that preface?

If I saw someone calling out or stopping street harassment, it would be really weird if they were all, "Hey, I don't like this lady much either, but..."

Pretty much what The Lone Ranger said. Moreover, I don't think she has as good a grounding on her subject in regard to video games as she claims. There's also the fact that there are allegations that in some of her videos on gaming tropes where she's sourced gameplay footage without attribution.

Having said that, though, it doesn't change the fact that she has been subjected to utterly disgraceful behavior. You can critique her videos and opinions without resorting to harassment and personal attacks.

That is a pretty fucked up thing to do. Seriously, if you love comic books and are a man, all harassing of women who work in the industry does is drive them away, which makes no fucking sense to me. As an fan of comic books, I want to see girls reading them and women working on them.

The attitudes of the shitheads attacking this woman does nothing productive and drives people away. Also, I would say it isn't so much the industry that has the problem as it is some of the assholes who read comic books that are the problem.

The attitudes of the shitheads attacking this woman does nothing productive and drives people away. Also, I would say it isn't so much the industry that has the problem as it is some of the assholes who read comic books that are the problem.

That would make it an industry problem, as they make their dollar by catering to them. Though not them alone.